| ▲ | dlcarrier 6 days ago |
| Also, it's 8P8C, not RJ45, and sometimes it's more important to use the term from a standard body, but usually it's more important to use the term everyone knows. When documenting, I recommend saying something like this: J3 is an 8P8C jack (commonly RJ45) for IEEE P802.3bz 2.5GBASE-T communications, backward compatible with Gigabit and Fast Ethernet
|
|
| ▲ | OhMeadhbh 5 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Right. RJ45 was sort of like an 8P8C, but had a thing on the side so you actually couldn't plug a "real" RJ45 cable into a "normal" 8P8C slot. |
| |
| ▲ | bigfatkitten 4 days ago | parent [-] | | RJ45 specified the entire interface (ie which wires did what), not just the connector. The “what” was of course not Ethernet. |
|
|
| ▲ | benlivengood 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| And Molex power connectors are actually AMP Mate-n-Lok connectors. I didn't learn this until this year... |
| |
| ▲ | 0_____0 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | A lot of connector series are are multi-sourced because big clients tend to require this. For example the 38999 series connectors used in military and aviation applications are made be TE, Amphenol, Souriau, ITT Cannon, Eaton... So it's really not uncommon to have manufacturers make something thing that a different company is known for. I think it's basically just luck that Molex got the credit for it | | |
| ▲ | goku12 4 days ago | parent [-] | | But 38999 refers to MIL-DTL-38999. Why is it inappropriate to call the same from any manufacturer by the same name? | | |
| ▲ | 0_____0 4 days ago | parent [-] | | 38999 is a bad example, because the standard came first. Better example might be something like LEMO F-series connectors, which might just be called LEMO connectors in some contexts, yet have compatible connector series from at least a couple different vendors. | | |
| ▲ | goku12 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Interesting! I wonder how they came up with the standard if there were no prior examples to base the standard on. | | |
| ▲ | 0_____0 a day ago | parent [-] | | There were similar connector standards that preceded 38999, e.g. MIL-DTL-5015 as far back as the 30's, which evolved into a couple of subsequent standards, with 38999 emerging in the 70's. Edit: just realized you were maybe referring to the LEMO F-Series compatible connectors. Sometimes a company just designs a new connector. The F-series stuff gets used on stuff like instrumentation that may or may not be ingress protected, and has a need for extremely small size and potentially getting mated/unmated often in service. My assumption is that LEMO found that there wasn't a connector on the market that did this well, and spun up a niche. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | dcrazy 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Which “Molex connector” are you referring to? The ATX spec specifically specifies Molex Mini-Fit part numbers, and claims this is for compatibility with PCIe: https://cdn.instructables.com/ORIG/FS8/5ILB/GU59Z1AT/FS85ILB... Is Mate-n-Lok perhaps a compatible product from a competitor? | | |
| ▲ | numpad0 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | "Molex" usually refers to flat 4 pin AMP 1-480424-0 or Molex 8981-04P connectors(part number taken from random pdf on the Internet[1]). Confusing as it is... Actual Molex Mini-Fit are rarely colloquially referred to as Molex. 1: https://community.intel.com/cipcp26785/attachments/cipcp2678... | | |
| ▲ | ssl-3 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I've heard it argued that "Molex" means any extruded-pin connector. Like "Kleenex" means any facial tissue that is meant to be sneezed on. (Both uses are wrong, but both also tend to promote efficient communication.) | | |
| ▲ | SAI_Peregrinus 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | And "JST" is used for any small white plastic connector with one side open showing the pins. "DuPont" means "Amphenol Mini-PV" or "Harwin M-20" or any other Mini-PV clone. | |
| ▲ | 0_____0 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I work a lot with connectors and I'm not really sure what you mean by extruded pin connectors. Typically the terminals are formed from sheet, unless you're using fancy 38999-style pins, which I believe are machined (and very expensive). | |
| ▲ | msla 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | At a certain point, the genericized trademark is the correct term, like how aspirin is the correct term (only term, really) for a specific preparation of acetylsalicylic acid, even though it was a trademark of the Bayer corporation. | |
| ▲ | hhh 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I’ve seen Molex’s part catalogue, and would expect that almost any connector could be a molex part ;) |
| |
| ▲ | dcrazy 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Ah, so it does appear that Mate-n-Lok is a name that AMP/TE uses for some Molex-compatible products. For example, TE’s Micro Mate-n-Lok appears to be compatible with Molex’s Micro-Fit. |
| |
| ▲ | fredoralive 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It’s the one the diagram of connectors calls “peripheral power connector” but the document doesn’t seem to go into details for it. Basically the original PC drive power connector, so 5.25” drives, older hard discs, optical drives etc. use it, in the latter cases it’s been replaced by the SATA power connector. | |
| ▲ | bradfa 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | ATX should call out Molex Mini-Fit Junior connectors. There are many Mini-Fit. |
| |
| ▲ | anonymousiam 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | ...and Berg (0.1") connectors are now Dupont, even though Dupont doesn't make them anymore, and has had nothing to do with them since 1993. Everyone called them "Berg" in 1978 when I was first exposed to them, even though Dupont had acquired the product line from Berg in 1972. https://www.reddit.com/r/electronics/comments/ioc6sf/i_final... | | |
| ▲ | dfe 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I'm a bit younger and I always called 0.1" spacing headers "Berg connectors" until the last couple of years when everyone started calling them DuPont. | | |
| ▲ | dotancohen 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I don't know which is the horse and which is the cart, but AliExpress sells them as DuPont and that's how everybody in the Arduino scene refers to them. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | dontdoxxme 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 2.5GBASE-T? But I do 10GBASE-T over one. Provided it has Cat 6A cable inside it and has been tested to IEC 60512-9-3 & IEC 60512-99-002. (See https://ieee802.org/3/bt/public/oct15/Draft%20of%20IEC%20605... for some fun photos of what happens when PoE is disconnected on a connector before IEC 60512-99-002...). |
| |
| ▲ | timerol 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The combination of "When documenting" and referencing "J3" indicates that dlcarrier is referencing a limitation of a specific port on a product that they worked on, not a set of global limitations on any 8P8C connectors | |
| ▲ | dlcarrier 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I had assumed that the wires in the jack would rest along the bottoms of the blades in the plug, but I guess if it was never designed for high current applications, the contact area wouldn't be a consideration. It took a few tries to get it right, but it's amazing that PoE is even an option given how far it is outside of the scope of what the cables and connectors were designed for. I've heard of locations that use it for power, instead of 120 V outlets, because it's cheaper and safer and most portable high-current appliances use batteries, while fixed high-current appliances use 240 V outlets. Hot plugging is always a challenge, especially with direct current, and negotiation prevents that from being a problem while making a connection, but I never considered that unplugging isn't negotiated first. I wonder if IEC has ever considered using a locking latch, like an EV charger. I have a PoE camera that I sometimes unplug to restart it, when it freezes up and I can't restart it from the web interface. I'll be sure to turn that port off first, before unplugging it. | | |
| ▲ | DHowett 5 days ago | parent [-] | | If you can turn the port off and then back on remotely, perhaps you can skip the unplugging part completely? I know that some managed PoE switches even offer a button to power cycle a port. | | |
| ▲ | dlcarrier 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Good point, now that you mention it, it's not turning off PoE, just stopping data. I don't know if there's a great way to handle it, and there's no way I'm shutting off the entire switch. I'll just unplug the patch panel end of the cable, instead of the switch end, so the jack I'm wearing out is one that's easy to replace. | |
| ▲ | bbarnett 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's just the chip the NSA put in the cable, failing to initialize first try. |
|
| |
| ▲ | formerly_proven 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | You'll also enjoy annex H of https://usb.org/sites/default/files/USB%20Type-C%202.4%20Rel... |
|
|
| ▲ | brudgers 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| While your preferred specification is excellent, It’s “an ethernet port” in ordinary usage. Or “ethernet jack” in more technical contexts and entirely sufficient for Ali Express. |
| |
| ▲ | skissane 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > While your preferred specification is excellent, It’s “an ethernet port” in ordinary usage. Or “ethernet jack” in more technical contexts and entirely sufficient for Ali Express. Right, in your average 2020s home or office, "Ethernet" is almost certainly 8P8C (commonly known as RJ-45). In decades past it was more ambiguous – in the 1990s, coax – ThinNet/10Base2 – was still reasonably common; even the older ThickNet/10Base5 would still occasionally be encountered. So to some extent, being specific is a bit of an "old timer" trait–a habit picked up decades ago when it was still important, now maintained when it is rarely still necessary. But even in the 2020s – in a factory, it could easily be M12 instead. Or even a mix of both – 8P8C in the offices, but M12 on the factory floor. Honestly, even in a home environment, I hate how fragile and easily unplugged 8P8C connectors are (the worst part is when they get slightly pulled out, so they still look like they are plugged in, but the connection is dead or flaky). I've thought about using M12 at home before, but it probably wouldn't be very practical. | | |
| ▲ | RF_Savage 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | M12 gets old quick if you do a lot plug/unplug cycles. | |
| ▲ | brudgers 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | in the 1990s, coax – ThinNet/10Base2 – was still reasonably common In the 1990's they were extremely uncommon and ethernet was rare. People had dial-up if they had anything at all and only a tiny fraction of people even had that. | | |
| ▲ | bigfatkitten 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | By around 1994 it was extremely common in pretty much any office with more than one PC. Dialup internet (or any internet access at all) was uncommon but LANs were popular, and they very rarely ran IP. IP didn’t typically come until later in the decade, when the need to share an internet connection arose. | | |
| ▲ | brudgers 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I did a lot of CAD in the 1990’s, most shops had no network and a computer on every desk. The reasons were simple: capital expense and scarcity of technical expertise. By 2000 it was different because networking was cheaper and the network effect had reached the tipping point where other businesses had email, ftp, etc. | | |
| ▲ | bigfatkitten 3 days ago | parent [-] | | It had nothing to do with capital. A low to mid spec PC cost around $2000, and an NE2000 clone was around $50. RG-58 coax was about 20 cents a foot from Radio Shack. Windows for Workgroups made the setup pretty trivial, and there was a plethora of folks out there (like me) repairing PCs and setting up LANs for small businesses. | | |
| ▲ | brudgers 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I was involved in those decisions. The people I worked for knew their businesses and knew the importance of cash flow to it. It had a lot to do with capital. The simple equation was that setting up a network did not look like it would make those companies money. And in the Windows for Workgroups era, running CAD on Windows was a massive performance hit. Don’t ignore the capital cost of buying Windows versions of Cad software…potentially thousands of dollars per seat. Don’t ignore the cost of graphics cards…the high performance card might not have Windows drivers and every machine might have a different card bought at a different time. And don’t ignore the cost of a file server that inspires confidence. In an environment where contracts are five to seven figures, the local PC repair shop is not the most enticing risk. | | |
| ▲ | skissane 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You don’t need Windows for networking. There was lots of networking software for DOS. NetWare was the most popular, but there were heaps of alternatives: Microsoft/IBM LAN Manager, Banyan VINES, DEC Pathworks, Sun PC-NFS - most of those required a server running some other operating system (such as OS/2, Unix or OpenVMS), but there was also a category of “peer-to-peer” DOS networking software which could operate without a dedicated server, e.g. Artisoft LANtastic, Novell’s NetWare Lite and its successor Personal NetWare | |
| ▲ | bigfatkitten 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | So what it comes down to is: The handful of places you worked in a specific industry didn’t want to spring for some ethernet cards, and so therefore office LANs were uncommon? | | |
| ▲ | brudgers 3 days ago | parent [-] | | They were uncommon because they were uncommon. That’s why there was a business installing them. If they were common nobody would have bought them from you. | | |
| ▲ | skissane 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Wifi networks are very common today, and yet there are heaps of businesses installing them (and they normally have to install Ethernet at the same time, to connect the access points to the broadband router/modem). The same is true of air conditioners, solar panels, household batteries, rainwater tanks, surveillance cameras, building alarms, fire alarms, fire suppression systems, elevators Your suggestion that the existence of businesses installing something is evidence the thing is uncommon, is illogical |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | skissane 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not in homes, in institutions (workplaces, schools, universities, government agencies, etc). In the early 1990s, a lot of places were in the process of replacing 10Base2 with 10BaseT, so there was still heaps of 10Base2 installs around. 10Base5 had mostly been replaced wth 10Base2 already, but as with any legacy technology, pockets of it survived initially-in 1992, 10Base5 was only 10 years old, absolutely you would find places still stuck on 10 year old technology. Nowadays? I doubt there is any 10Base5 left anywhere. Maybe, maybe, buried deep inside some super-legacy embedded system, but even that’s dubious. | | |
| ▲ | brudgers 4 days ago | parent [-] | | SneakerNet was far more common in the world were most people actually lived and if there was a digital network there is a good chance it was Novell or Token Ring. | | |
| ▲ | skissane 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > if there was a digital network there is a good chance it was Novell or Token Ring As the other commenter pointed out already, the vast majority of Netware networks used Ethernet. I knew what Token Ring was, but I don't think I ever actually saw it, my knowledge of it was purely from books and magazines. My dad's work (a pharmaceutical manufacturing plant) was somewhat of an IBM shop in that their main computer was an AS/400 that ran the whole factory, but I interned in their IT department for two weeks in 1997 (I think I'd just turned 15) and I don't remember seeing any Token Ring, or hearing it even mentioned. And this is the thing, I was a teenager in the 1990s, I was there. I saw Ethernet (and Acorn Econet too, which is much more obscure). I saw it at my school. I saw it at my dad's work. I remember one of my school friends had Ethernet in his house (not in the walls, they just had 2-3 computers in the family room connected to a hub/switch). I was trying to convince my dad to buy Ethernet cards but he wasn't sold on the idea–he was familiar with it from work (his field was chemistry and pharmaceutical manufacturing not computing, but he was technical enough to know what it was), but at home he was happy with Laplink. We had dial-up Internet before we had Ethernet; we had multiple computers, more than one of them had a modem, and my siblings and I would fight over who would use the dial-up since only one of us could use it at once. I remember around 1998 I was invited to a LAN party at a church, but I didn't go. "the world were most people actually lived" is a bit meaningless, because then we are talking about what was happening in rural villages in Africa at the time. In the world in which I lived, my 1990s, Ethernet was widespread, first in school/work settings, and by the end of it, it was really taking off in home settings too. Maybe your 1990s were different from mine (different country/geography, different social milieu), or maybe you weren't actually there to experience it firsthand. | | |
| ▲ | brudgers 3 days ago | parent [-] | | My 1990’s were indeed different. I was firmly into adulthood when they began, I worked at ordinary small businesses, and was often involved in technology purchasing decisions. Where I was working in 1997, I set up the company’s Yahoo email…one address for the whole office which went to the receptionist’s computer. Which was fine because important communication was done by phone or fax and if you needed to reach someone out of their office you probably called their pager…though cell phones were around, most business people could not justify the expense and cell phone culture did not exist yet. The office moved files with floppy disks via courier or USPS. Backups were to Qic tape and files moved within the office via sneaker net…cd burners were still uncommon, large, SCSI, slow, and expensive. So Zip disks were more common. To put it another way, I spent all 10 years of the 1990’s using computers for work. It was a very different life. | | |
| ▲ | skissane 3 days ago | parent [-] | | We lived in different geographies (you were somewhere in the US, I was in Sydney, Australia), being exposed to different types of enterprises: for me a private Catholic high school, and the Australian branch of the global US-headquartered pharmaceutical company for which my father worked. I suspect your experiences were in part a product of which industry you were in, and which end of that industry - in another comment you mentioned DOS-based CAD software, in the early 1990s some big firms (especially in aerospace, defence, automotive) were still using IBM mainframe-based CAD systems running on IBM 7437s and 5080s (and if you could afford that fiendishly expensive kit, you could afford networking and likely already had it); as the 1990s progressed, mainframe-based CAD increasingly moved to UNIX workstations, for which Ethernet was very standard. And DOS-based CAD software and networking were not mutually exclusive-NetWare worked fine with DOS, and my high school had a CAD lab running the DOS version of Bentley MicroStation (IIRC, the DOS version we used was still branded Intergraph not Bentley), but all the machines were connected to Ethernet and we logged in to them using NetWare. Similarly, at my dad’s work almost all PCs ran Windows 3.x, but there were a few DOS-only machines connected to various pieces of laboratory or manufacturing equipment for which the software was DOS-only (and had issues running under a Windows 3.x DOS box) - and they connected those machines to NetWare too, because NetWare had no problem with DOS-only clients. |
|
| |
| ▲ | bigfatkitten 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | “Novell” invariably meant a Netware box in a closet that people talked to via IPX/SPX over Ethernet. Token Ring was rare outside of IBM shops. Only commonly found in places like banks. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | spauldo 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | That does you no good in my line of work, where it's just as likely to be a serial port. |
|
|
| ▲ | mayli 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yeah, I learned that rencently, engineers are dumb on naming things and remember the namings. |
|
| ▲ | noobermin 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| After googling for an image of that, jesus christ you learn something new everyday. |
|
| ▲ | aruametello 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| _o/ 100% guilty here, ouch. also never saw a 8P8C "keyed, real rj45" connector in person. |
|
| ▲ | bobmcnamara 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Most 8P8C other connectors are incompatible with RJ45. Why wouldn't you say RJ45? |
| |
| ▲ | wsh 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | RJ45S and RJ45M are ordering codes for so-called “registered jack” configurations for terminal connections to the U.S. telephone network. These codes were defined until 2000 in the FCC Rules (47 CFR § 68.502(e)) and later in the TIA/EIA-IS-968 standard, and they refer to single and multiple arrangements of two wires and a programming resistor on a miniature eight-position keyed jack. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2000-title47-vol3/pd... Unfortunately, the “RJ45” part of these codes has become a metonym for the unkeyed version of the miniature eight-position jack and plug, now widely used for Ethernet and other purposes, but strictly speaking, RJ45 refers to a different connector with totally incompatible wiring. | |
| ▲ | LukeShu 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Specifically, what is colloquially an "RJ45" or "Ethernet" connector is an 8P8C "Bell System Miniature Plug/Jack" (AT&T's original name; it is a smaller version of the older Bell System connectors) / "miniature plug/jack" (FCC genericization of the name by removing "Bell System", even though the word "miniature" is no longer meaningful without context) / "modular jack" (ANSI/IEC genericization). That is what is meant when just "8P8C" is said. Pedantically speaking, RJ45 (as first defined by AT&T internally[1], and later by the FCC's 47 CFR part 68) is not that. The RJ45 socket is a keyed 8P8C modular jack, not a regular 8P8C modular jack. Here is a photo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RJ45_female_connecto... [1]: The "RJ45" designation was originally an AT&T "USOC" (Universal Service Order Code). In the '70s, the FCC told AT&T that they had to allow interoperability from other companies, so the FCC had to publish a bunch of specifications; the meaning of "RJ45" became publicly specified in Bell System Communications' Technical Reference PUB 47101 "Standard Plugs And Jacks" (1979, though I think there might be an older number/revision from the early '70s that I haven't been able to track down). That (in combination with a few other technical references, such as PUB 47102), later became part of the Code of Federal Regulations, as 47 CFR part 68. | |
| ▲ | bigbuppo 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | RJ45 is a specific AT&T USOC order code to slap a normal 8P8C jack on someone's wall to provide something like multi-line analog telephone service. | | |
| ▲ | LukeShu 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | RJ45 is a keyed 8-position jack, not a normal 8-position jack. ("Keyed" means that there's a notch in the side making it a different shape; you would not be able to fit an "Ethernet" connector into it.) Closer is RJ38X, which is a series 8-position jack, not a normal 8-position jack. ("Series" means that the jack shorts pint 1 to pin 4 and pin 5 to pin 8 when there's not a cable plugged in to it; you would be able to fit an "Ethernet" connector into it, but even so it's probably not what you want.) AFAICT (skimming 47 CFR part 68, and the historical AT&T documents that became 47 CFR part 68), there is no RJ-number for a normal 8-position jack. | | |
| ▲ | pests 5 days ago | parent [-] | | > you would not be able to fit an "Ethernet" connector into it Because of the size being different? Surely a keyed female plug will take a male connector with or without the key. Or did you mean you couldn't fit a RK45 connector into a Ethernet plug because then the key would interfere? |
| |
| ▲ | arghwhat 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | RJ45 is a mechanically (slightly) different connector, but indeed all RJ specs were for phone lines, with RJ45 focused on several lines for high speed modem connections. The regular ethernet 8P8C connector was defined by both an ANSI and ISO spec, neither of which gave the connector an actual name as it covers modular connector designs. :/ | |
| ▲ | Sammi 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I used to do phone support for a phone company / isp and I have no idea what you just wrote. | | |
| ▲ | craftkiller 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | To be fair, 5 out of the 6 phone support agents I talked to at Optimum (an ISP) did not know what IPv6 is, so saying you used to do phone support for an ISP isn't really saying much. | | | |
| ▲ | SAI_Peregrinus 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | RJ45 is a connector with a key notch sticking out and a "programming" resistor joining two of the pins. It won't work for Ethernet at all, the plug side can't even fit in the 8P8C socket Ethernet uses. If you grind off the key it'll still not work, because of the embedded resistor. Also the pinout is totally wrong, so even if you didn't have the resistor it wouldn't work. None of the RJ connectors have the correct pinout for Ethernet. | |
| ▲ | SV_BubbleTime 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | He said RJ45 is an AT&T part/reference number. Just like RJ11 which is your small phone plug that had 6pins, more rare. | | |
| ▲ | arghwhat 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Nit: RJ11 has two contacts. RJ11, RJ14 and RJ25 all used the same 6P housing though, making them 6P2C, 6P4C and 6P6C connectors, respectively. Things sold as RJ11 is often 6P4C, making for another error. The rule of thumb is that anything referred to as RJ-something is likely wrong. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | pythonguython 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Well you definitely SHOULD say RJ45. We do a lot of networking at my job and if I asked for an 8P8C connector, I would get confused stares. Say Ethernet cable, Cat 6 cable (or whatever cat), or RJ45. Sometimes being correct isn’t the right thing to do. | | |
| ▲ | rblatz 5 days ago | parent [-] | | If a contractor installed exactly what he asked for, an RJ45 jack which would be unusable for his needs he would have no grounds to stand on to demand it be corrected without paying more. By specifying the technically correct name as well as the colloquially recognized name he is being precise and accommodating. | | |
| ▲ | pythonguython 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | If a contract requires RJ45 terminated Ethernet patch cables and the contractor delivers keyed RJ45, they have not delivered because RJ45 doesn’t even have the correct conductor layout to act as an Ethernet cable. Contracts call for RJ45 all the time and there are no mixups. You’d probably find it quite difficult to even find vendors for keyed RJ45 | |
| ▲ | willis936 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I know this feels like a technically correct gotcha, but in fact is not. Do some parametric searches on digikey and flip through some manufacturer catalogs. If you go out of your way to misinterpret industry standard jargon you won't be paid for your work and you'll lose the contract. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | TZubiri 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Another, it's not an API it's an backend to backend http server, (but we know what you mean) |